cheewai_m6 Posted October 5, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 5, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) i've got an m6 and i love it, but i never even considered the m8 because it didn't have a full frame sensor. i'm not in a position to buy more lenses cause we know how much that can cost. plus, because i've only been shooting with a leica since 2007, i'm not very good at it, i've been using slr and dslr the whole time. the only way to get better on the leica is to shoot more. in australia, film isn't cheap, developing and printing is $10AUD/roll if you want your film done properly. which i am happy to pay because i love shooting with the m6. but now, the m9 has come along, and when i eventually can afford one, i can shoot as much as i like, practice/learn as much as i like and not pay a single dollar to see results. am i the only one in this position? is the m9 going to kill film? or at least put a big dent in its existence? i personally hope not, but it's a dieing medium. for someone like me who isn't very good, it's easier, and cheaper to shoot in digital knowing the m9 gives quality like the traditional leicas. what your opinion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Hi cheewai_m6, Take a look here will the m9 kill film?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hunghang Posted October 5, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 5, 2009 I'd say it is another nail in the coffin, but not the final one. There are still reasons for shooting film, and the M9 does not replace those (e.g. the "look" and "feel" of the whole process, the initial $$$ outlay, people who like "real" B&W, and those who shoot chromes - at least those are my reasons why I'll still be keeping my film cameras). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
think Posted October 5, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 5, 2009 Not at $7k a pop and while film is still readily available. Outside of a lottery win I can't see one of these in my future. $7k will net you a pretty decent FF DSLR kit with reasonably fast primes. At this point I'd rather drop a fraction of that on another TS lens for my Canon and keep my M6's. Just one man's opinion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted October 5, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 5, 2009 Film should make a big comeback once digital is completely associated with housewives, clumsy hobbyists, crude PP trends, and "pros" driven by bottom-line convenience and profit (small weddings, youth directed advertising, low rent PJs etc) Digital is relatively recent. Most photographers are still in a honeymoon phase with the new technology. But, it's widespread adoption by those previously mentioned will inevitably cause a backlash within the craft. Film might be the only place to go once the backlash to digital truly starts to manifest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheewai_m6 Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted October 5, 2009 i will never get rid of my m6, i just love it to death. i wish i have an mp as well. gentlemen villain. i understand what you're saying. and i hope, truley hope it's true. but, is there any basis or data backing your 'predcition' up? it's a big claim. and could you ellaborate 'backlash'. i know i sound like i'm doubting you, but i am only asking cause it's a big statement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twittle Posted October 5, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 5, 2009 I think it's not even realistically another nail in the coffin. Leica holds such a small share of the market that what they do can only have the most minimal effect on the industry, as a whole. Film, especially b&w, will be around for a long time to come. And if the strong (but minor) comeback of vinyl can be taken as any kind of omen, film should pick up again in due time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twittle Posted October 5, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 5, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) and could you ellaborate 'backlash'. Not directed at me, but I'll take a crack anyway. Those within a given craft like to feel what they do is beyond the capabilities of those outside that craft--they like to feel what they do is somehow special. Digital photography has become pervasive (nearly everyone has a digital camera), so professional and serious amateur photographers could conceivably go back to film just to be different from the public, at large. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasw_ Posted October 5, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 5, 2009 Re: will the m9 kill film? No, hardly. I think there will be a niche market for film, especially BW films, for some years yet. I do think that film users' buying power will be focussed less on local shops and more on mail order online stores like freestyle. That's speculative, however; but my response to your question is "no". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweeney Posted October 5, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 5, 2009 Hehehe, no the M9 certainly will not kill film. Neither will digital photography as a whole. When photography was first invented in the early 1800s people said that painting would die out. Now it's obviously not done that, they are both good options for artistic expression. Digital and film will likewise co-exist I think, although film is certainly less prevalent than it used to be. I've just switched from DSLR back to film Leica M, and I'm planning on staying in business for a long time to come hopefully. The final result is what's important and what you want to say with your images. Does your chosen medium do that for you? Then stick with it and learn all you can about it. Your Leica M will serve you faithfully for many years and it's worth learning to be proficient with it. best regards, Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted October 5, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 5, 2009 Not directed at me, but I'll take a crack anyway. Those within agiven craft like to feel what they do is beyond the capabilities of those outside that craft--they like to feel what they do is somehow special. Digital photography has become pervasive (nearly everyone has a digital camera), so professional and serious amateur photographers could conceivably go back to film just to be different from the public, at large. In my experience, digital is just as difficult to work with as film. Both of them have their advantages and disadvantages and both can produce excellent results. Unfortunately, there are many poor craftsman working with digital and creating a tidal wave of low quality images. These images bombard the viewer to the point that the digital "look" itself becomes associated with low standards of technical craftsmanship. Maybe the best analogy that I can come up with is how color negative film was viewed by professional photographers in the last century. Color negative was very popular with housewives and average people. Labs that processed color negative were easy to find and could often have prints done within an hour. There were disposable cameras that made color negative photography accessible to any person with 10-20 dollars in his pocket. Inevitably, the "look" of color negative film began to be associated with the low standards of craftsmanship of the general populace. Most serious photographic craftsman would distance themselves from that "look" at would use transparency film as an alternative. It was very rare to find a commercial photographer that was working with anything other than transparency film. Color negative film was excellent and there was nothing wrong with it in terms of image quality. The problem was that color negative film was so easily accessible and open to abuse that it's "look" became associated with low standards of craftsmanship. It's just as difficult to be a good digital photographer as it is to be a good film photographer IMHO. Both of them are equally legitimate photographic mediums. However, I do believe that the digital "look" is inevitably going to be associated with low standards of craftsmanship. Future backlash against digital will probably come from within the part of the photographic community that wishes to maintain extremely high standards of craftsmanship. These associations between digital and film will probably become more apparent as the honeymoon with digital cools and it's technology just becomes commonplace. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 5, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 5, 2009 Good arguments,Gentlemen Villain : the comparision with dia vs. neg is appropriate; but there is a factor that probably will maintain digital flying high, and is that digital media and digital process do bring much more efficiency in many professional tasks : when the image is a FILE, there is, obviously, a big advantage in delivering / processing / duplicating etc... from the photog to the publishers ; so I think the whole world of press, magazines, agencies etc is almost definitely tied to digital workflow, for it has became an efficient and economical part of their processes. And of course, as has been said, low-key "pro" tasks like net advertising / local event reporting etc. do also find in digital their economic survival. But I agree that, as digital becomes more and more pervasive, the niche for high quality film+chemical process will assess as a form of art/craftmanship which will survive; I'm curios to see if and when industry will target this niche, with proper materials in the field of film / paper /chemicals etc... BTW... M9 has little to do with this trend : indeed, is probably the first camera that can convince to go digital a number of Leica users, but anyway this represents a very limited share of the whole market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikau Posted October 5, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 5, 2009 The M9 will have absolutely no effect on the "death" of film. I'm surprised the question is even being asked. The sale of millions of cheap digital point-and-shoots might have something to do with the slide in the film market, but not a very expensive camera made in tiny numbers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusperkins Posted October 5, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 5, 2009 I don't think there will be mass return to film - nobody does, but I can genuinely foresee a small but sizable number of photographers shooting film for the reasons Gentleman Villain suggested - on top of shooting digital for high volume work. For me personally, I'm increasingly taking an MP on every assignment, and using it when I feel there is a picture that would really benefit, and I do believe that if people are going to shoot film on top of digital (rather than just film) it will be with a Leica or a similarly small camera, or the equivalent medium format camera like a Mamiya 7 for example - both systems are small, light and high quality. I thoroughly enjoy the process of shooting film; the client takes a real interesest when I pull out the MP (rather than saying something like "Oh, what do you want to shoot film for, digital is so much better"). And a great picture on film in comparison to a great picture on digital has so much more going for it. I think we were all originally impressed by digital's ability to give us grainless pictures, which gave the impression of a big step forward in terms of perceived quality. However, scanning film on good equipment (yes I know they should be printed), I do see a quality and depth I used to take for granted. In the UK, there appears to be a big backlash against digital radio, resulting in a growing demand for FM radios. We all remember the adverts for digital radio - how crystal clear the sound would be, no hiss or noise. However, each and every one of my friends, and many other people I've spoken to who bought into the 'dream' have been disappointed. The sound is somehow irritating, and in many cases unreliable. Whilst there are very real commercial advantages in going digital in terms of ease, speed and choice, the looser in this is the pleasure of actually viewing or listening to the final product. Kenneth's earlier comments (on another thread) regarding the debatable end quality of digital does ring a bell in my mind. However, in direct response to the original question, I don't think the M9 will have that much of an impact on film users. If you want to shoot film, then you want to shoot film, not shoot digital that looks like film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 5, 2009 Share #14 Posted October 5, 2009 Nylon sheets and shirts were all the rage once, so much better than cotton, easier, more convenient................ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M'Ate Posted October 5, 2009 Share #15 Posted October 5, 2009 I'm sure that film will be used forever by the more discerning. We know that digital B&W doesn't compare at all well with film B&W. We know that films are design to provide realistic and smooth skin tones that digital struggles with. Hybrid processes using quality scanners give massive file sizes that dwarf your average digital camera outputs. 300 mb from a £50 Yashicamat. There are many quoted examples where customers who want prints, rather than the printed page, requesting film for the aesthetic it offers. The M9 might kill off the production of film M's, but never the use of film M's. If the production of 35mm film was ever to cease, it would take 35 years+ to slowly bring it to a close, but make no mistake 120 film will never cease, it's got 100 years behind it and will always be available. (all IMO). BTW and seriously - can anybody direct me to a web site showing a half decent image from an M9 ? Have you seen one yet that clearly illustrates an improvement over any of the better film images that frequently appear in the Photo section here ? No anti-digital emotions here, as I'm as seduced by digital benefits as the next woman, but if we're not cautious, we'll end up possibly releasing our film gear and regretting it later. Appreciate that there's always good gear available for re-purchase, but doesn't seem the same as the much-loved stuff already in our bags. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rona!d Posted October 5, 2009 Share #16 Posted October 5, 2009 Film is unique, NO digital camera can sing the songs, film can sing. After some months with M9 I´ll load the good old M´s for the next weekend. It´s different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 5, 2009 Share #17 Posted October 5, 2009 Further to Rona|d's post, every film is unique, with a different signature. Even today, the choice is very wide, in both colour and black & white, and the photographer can choose how s/he wants to present the photograph by their choice of film. Indeed, there are hundreds of different developers to choose from too, so the possibilities are almost endless. On the other hand, a chip is a chip is a chip. You only have one per camera, and you don't change it, and, again, IMHO, no amount of PP "Tri-X-ing" with a bit of software will ever give a true rendition of the photograph as if it had been taken on Tri-X. So, IMHO, the answer to the original question is "No" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted October 5, 2009 Share #18 Posted October 5, 2009 I'm sure that film will be used forever by the more discerning. We know that digital B&W doesn't compare at all well with film B&W. We know that films are design to provide realistic and smooth skin tones that digital struggles with. Hybrid processes using quality scanners give massive file sizes that dwarf your average digital camera outputs. 300 mb from a £50 Yashicamat. There are many quoted examples where customers who want prints' date=' rather than the printed page, requesting film for the aesthetic it offers. The M9 might kill off the production of film M's, but never the use of film M's. If the production of 35mm film was ever to cease, it would take 35 years+ to slowly bring it to a close, but make no mistake 120 film will never cease, it's got 100 years behind it and will always be available. (all IMO). BTW and seriously - can anybody direct me to a web site showing a half decent image from an M9 ? Have you seen one yet that clearly illustrates an improvement over any of the better film images that frequently appear in the Photo section here ? No anti-digital emotions here, as I'm as seduced by digital benefits as the next woman, but if we're not cautious, we'll end up possibly releasing our film gear and regretting it later. Appreciate that there's always good gear available for re-purchase, but doesn't seem the same as the much-loved stuff already in our bags.[/quote'] ...good points well made, M'Ate. Interestingly, I picked up my M9 on 09/09/09 and used it for two days - since then, my business partner has more or less taken ownership of the thing. I, on the other hand, have reverted to my trusty MPs. I suspect that if I was a working photographer the outcome would have been slightly different. Not your typical use case, I accept, but my point is that, given a choice, not everyone will go digital. I simply prefer film because of the quality of final output which, in my case, is *always* a tactile (FB-based) print. There is ample evidence that many more share this view so, from a strictly commercial point of view, it makes sense to look forward to the continued production of film. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccis Posted October 5, 2009 Share #19 Posted October 5, 2009 IMHO, no... While the M9 is a fantastic camera and I am very happy for Leica that FF digital M is now a reality which will benefit them and those that were waiting in the sidelines for it to finally embrace the digital M, film will still be demanded by both amateurs and pros alike for a long time. Yes, there are some fields where digital is the way to go if you want to be able to put food on the table (i.e. sports, certain commercial jobs, etc...) but, at least for me and a lot of my peers, film is still a very viable alternative and what the clients demand due to their background and taste. While some folks really don't care about whether I work with film or digital, a large percentage of them (art directors, models and other folks from the creative industry) will require to have their wedding shot only on film, and in my case about 90%-95% in B&W with their delivered album entirely handprinted on fiber in the darkroom. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted October 5, 2009 Share #20 Posted October 5, 2009 One of the most salient features of this discussion has been left unsaid. Like all modalities of art, there is a fusion and strong impulses to merge the best features of imaging creation, regardless of the origin. As we get software that allows more & more creative work to be done out of the camera, the source material may indeed become secondary. I shoot an equal amount of film & digital. I shoot a lot. What interests me is to create an image that’s not a copy of reality, but to express what I want others to see. The format is less & les of importance, the end result is the only thing of value. With engineering systems that will soon make a virtual variable lens system available within software, image making will reach a different creative space. Artists won’t be constricted by price & hardware to deliver their images. It’s on the horizon and I’ve witnessed some pretty amazing things in some University labs. It won’t be about film or digital. It will be about imagination. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.